Review of Tribunal's Order Set Aside, Writ Jurisdiction Exercised for Improper Review

The High Court held that the Tribunal's review of its previous order was impermissible and set aside the order allowing rectification by the revenue. The High Court acknowledged the alternate remedy of appeal but noted that when an order is passed without jurisdiction, the writ jurisdiction can be exercised. The High Court found that the Tribunal had reviewed its earlier order improperly and stayed the operation of the new order for further consideration, recognizing the need for final disposal of the petition and ensuring a fair consideration of the petitioner's case.

---

---

Issues:
1. Assessment of income under 'income from other sources'
2. Rectification application under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
3. Review of Tribunal's order and jurisdiction of High Court
4. Applicability of writ jurisdiction versus statutory appeal remedy

Analysis:

1. The petitioner filed a return of income for the assessment year 2004-05, and the Assessing Officer assessed the income as 'income from other sources' based on previous orders. The Tribunal directed a re-computation of income. Two applications under section 254(2) of the Act were filed - one by the petitioner and the other by the revenue, highlighting issues regarding the taxability of notional income under 'income from other sources'.

2. The Tribunal allowed both applications, recalled the order, and re-fixed the matters for fresh orders. A writ petition was filed against the Tribunal's order, where the High Court held that the Tribunal reviewing its previous order was impermissible and set aside the order allowing rectification by the revenue.

3. Subsequently, the Tribunal passed a new order treating the income as 'income from house property', which the petitioner challenged. The High Court acknowledged the alternate remedy of appeal but noted that when an order is passed without jurisdiction, the writ jurisdiction can be exercised. The High Court found that the Tribunal had reviewed its earlier order improperly and stayed the operation of the new order for further consideration.

4. The High Court recognized the need for final disposal of the petition and directed listing for a later date. The Court balanced the principles of statutory appeal remedies and the jurisdiction to intervene in cases of orders passed without jurisdiction, ensuring a fair consideration of the petitioner's case.

---